I find that pretty worrying, but oddly enough, there is hardly any other information to be found on this subject. The only other articles I can find link back to this one, so I wonder, is this just sensationalist reporting or is there some truth to this?

It can't explode (the article admits this after the headline), the are talking about a hydrogen explosion, from metal which is corroded enough to allow seawater in but is apparently strong enough to allow massive amounts of high pressure hydrogen and oxygen to form.

The environmental effects, which most the article are about, are the exact opposite - a leak of radionuclides would create a massive environmental reserve where nobody wanted to hunt or fish - just like Chernobyl.

Staff: Mentor

Also, I'm pretty sure the scientific consensus does not include the conclusion that Chernobyl killed 100,000 people.

The 2005 report prepared by the Chernobyl Forum, led by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and World Health Organization (WHO), attributed "fewer than 50" direct deaths (including nine children with thyroid cancer) and estimated that there may be 4,000 additional cancer deaths over time among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed people.[1][5]

Also, I'm pretty sure the scientific consensus does not include the conclusion that Chernobyl killed 100,000 people

These sort of figures are always suspect, they are extending an outdoors smoking ban here to include beaches and wilderness - the justification is the claim passive smoking is the second biggest killer. The reasoning being that all cancers in non-smokers must be due to second-hand smoke!

The hundreds of thousands deaths in Chernobyl meme (and variations) came from taking the total number of deaths in Kiev Oblast for some number of years after the disaster and attributing all of it to Chernobyl.